Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What about the Refs? -- Gap?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What about the Refs? -- Gap?

    Was it just me or did the Refs look like they were in preseason form Friday night? There was really marginal calls.

    --Holts catch
    --The QB hit by Lewis
    --A couple of phantom pass interferences that went against the Skins
    --Hands to the face

  • #2
    Re: What about the Refs? -- Gap?

    Holt's catch and D-Lew's hit were the worst and in that order.

    D-Lew did not hit Ramsey late. I can't even believe the flag ever came out of the pocket on that one. But it's purely judgement from the aspect of timing so I won't complain too much.

    But Holt's non-catch was the most ridiculous call I've seen in some time. Not even instance replay could surpass the official's incompetence on that one.
    The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: What about the Refs? -- Gap?

      Originally posted by RamWraith
      Was it just me or did the Refs look like they were in preseason form Friday night? There was really marginal calls.

      --Holts catch
      --The QB hit by Lewis
      --A couple of phantom pass interferences that went against the Skins
      --Hands to the face
      First off, the hands to the face is hard to call, as fox dropped the ball with lousy camera work. The closest thing I saw to "hand to the face" was as much or more offensive holding. If the official was throwing the flag at the one area I could see, he did the RAMS a huge disservice for not throwing a his hat and having off-setting penalties.

      gap

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: What about the Refs? -- Gap?

        Originally posted by RamWraith
        Was it just me or did the Refs look like they were in preseason form Friday night? There was really marginal calls.

        --Holts catch
        --The QB hit by Lewis
        --A couple of phantom pass interferences that went against the Skins
        --Hands to the face
        There will be more than once when the refs miss a call. All I ask is that they keep the calls balanced and err on the side of fair play.

        Holt's catch? Once it went to replay, there had to be "conclusive evidence" to overturn the on the field decision. The camera angle did not afford any one the ability to see if there was space between Holt's toe and the ground. Just because his toe was pointed down didn't conclusively demonstrate that he was dragging it along the turf. There you have another reason to install natural grass again ... if he did indeed drag the foot on the ground, the ground would most likely have been disturbed and some sort of indentation would have been left along the length of the drag. But, conclusive? I think not.

        The hit by Lewis? It does boggle my mind how any ref thinks an object in motion can abruptly stop or change direction if it isn't a UFO.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: What about the Refs? -- Gap?

          Under them same lines I have a question then. Did they NOT go to review whether the ball was bobbled or not, as that was the original call. If so; I thought having control of the ball was at the ref's discretion and not reviewable under rules.


          Originally posted by afrightertoo
          Holt's catch? Once it went to replay, there had to be "conclusive evidence" to overturn the on the field decision. The camera angle did not afford any one the ability to see if there was space between Holt's toe and the ground. Just because his toe was pointed down didn't conclusively demonstrate that he was dragging it along the turf. There you have another reason to install natural grass again ... if he did indeed drag the foot on the ground, the ground would most likely have been disturbed and some sort of indentation would have been left along the length of the drag. But, conclusive? I think not.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: What about the Refs? -- Gap?

            Originally posted by RamWraith
            Under them same lines I have a question then. Did they NOT go to review whether the ball was bobbled or not, as that was the original call. If so; I thought having control of the ball was at the ref's discretion and not reviewable under rules.
            Well you've got me there. I thought they went to replay to see whether his feet were inbounds ... I only remember it being called incomplete, not why.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: What about the Refs? -- Gap?

              I'm not clear on the rules of that challenge either. It seemed clear to me that Holt made the catch, although I suppose I can understand that the replay didn't supply conclusive evidence to support it.

              Still, you have to wonder how many of these questionable calls don't get overturned because the officials don't want to admit to their whiffing on the call in real time. I mean, they said he was bobbling the ball and he clearly wasn't. By that logic, I would think they'd have to rule it a catch. But who knows, nowadays.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: What about the Refs? -- Gap?

                Originally posted by NickSeiler
                Still, you have to wonder how many of these questionable calls don't get overturned because the officials don't want to admit to their whiffing on the call in real time.
                I think it is a fair question. It implies collusion but it is pretty rare to have refs publically argue with one another regarding what they've seen and called. Sure you have a "meeting of the minds" once in a while but it seems like few and far between.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: What about the Refs? -- Gap?

                  Originally posted by afrightertoo
                  I think it is a fair question. It implies collusion but it is pretty rare to have refs publically argue with one another regarding what they've seen and called. Sure you have a "meeting of the minds" once in a while but it seems like few and far between.
                  A coach challenging a call is basically telling a referee, "I think you messed up that call to the point where I'm willing to wager a time out on it," and it's hard for me to believe that if a play is questionable enough, some ref isn't going to side with his original call so that he doesn't get blamed for being wrong later. Although, this is all purely speculation.

                  Comment

                  Related Topics

                  Collapse

                  • 01d 0rd3r
                    The Refs
                    by 01d 0rd3r
                    This is not meant to be a cop out, our offense didnt play up to snuff although i dont think they were horrible. Our play calling was beyond bad on some plays, and just what we needed on other plays (the screen to jackson on the final game tying drive).

                    But seriously the refs are making me sick to my stomach. These BS pass interference calls are getting on my nerves. The holt catch that was clearly out of bounds to anything that has eyes. How can this happen in a leauge were the refs are relied upon to make this game fair? I am begining to think that goodal wants another 0-16 team so he can pressure us into moving to LA.
                    -10-18-2009, 03:18 PM
                  • NJ Ramsfan1
                    Replay and other random thoughts
                    by NJ Ramsfan1
                    I am convinced more than ever that replay is ruining football. It is absolutely torturous to watch what seems like every sideline catch and scoring play reviewed. It disrupts the flow of the game. It allows you to view a game, get excited over a score or a play, then rips the rug out from underneath you while making you wait for the outcome. It's no better in baseball. Though I understand it's not going away, I absolutely hate it.

                    Tennis and basketball have it right. The calls are used very sparingly and result in an immediate decision. Little to no waiting. No viewing from 5 different angles. No indecision on something we can clearly see from our own living rooms.

                    And don't tell me that "getting it right is the most important thing". Sometimes REPLAY doesn't even result in a right decision!! You mean to tell me Garcon's sideline catch (a call which was overturned and ruled a catch) was legit? His momentum was clearly taking him a foot out of bounds in the act of the catch. You can't convince me otherwise.The human element is a part of sports. Players make mistakes. Coaches make mistakes. Officials make mistakes. Live with it. Be more competent. Add an official if need be. You mean to tell me in all the games played in the years before replay that there were THAT MANY plays that weren't called correctly?? I don't buy it.

                    Also stuck in my craw was the roughing the passer call vs. Aaron Donald. This is exhibit "A" of what's ruining the game. Guy hits the QB in the act of throwing, executes a perfect form tackle, doesn't lead with the head and still gets flagged 15 yards simply because Hoyer took a hard hit. Can't tell you how infuriated I was watching that. Concern for safety (hypocritical given the NFL's long time denial of concussion effects and allowing Thursday night football) has completely neutered good defensive play.

                    It's getting tougher and tougher to enjoy sports. And replay shows that change isn't always for the better....
                    -09-22-2017, 05:06 AM
                  • Milan
                    The Refs
                    by Milan
                    Are you kidding me?

                    That was awful officiating. 2 Non-called PIs then right after the first, they call an iffy one on Chavous. The 3rd-down where they gave them pretty much 2 extra yards. The Horse Collar call?

                    They didn't cost us the game but they did their best to give it away.
                    -12-16-2007, 02:35 PM
                  • HUbison
                    McLeod's hit on Sanders
                    by HUbison
                    I'm no expert on the NFL rule book, obviously. But I'm still wondering what was illegal about McLeod's hit?

                    The call was unnecessary roughness. Here's the rule book:
                    By definition, Sanders was a "defenseless opponent", I grant you. But if I'm reading this correctly, McLeod would have had to put a helmet on him for this to be unnecessary roughness. I've seen the replay several times now, and I'm seeing shoulder-to-shoulder contact.

                    Does anyone see where he's leading with the head?

                    Or was that hit just so frickin' violent that the officials felt a need to throw the flag?...
                    -11-17-2014, 06:50 AM
                  • jdpbmo
                    reviewing calls from the booth
                    by jdpbmo
                    Okay, enough is enough. I can usually sit by and hold my piece, but I am so tired of this idiotic process the NFL uses to review calls. It isn't that I'm against the reviewing of questionable calls. I am 100 % for it. I want the call to be right. A noncall or wrong call shouldn't cost a team the game. It all came to a head in the Detroit/GB game when they didn't bother reviewing the touchdown late in the game. How crazy was that? If I was in charge of that part of the game, there would be some people looking for work tomorrow. My main problem with the process is that you are asking officials that make a call, or maybe don't make a call, to reverse their own decision. You are asking them to second-guess themselves or perhaps members of their crew. Now we can sit there and say "well, so what if they have to reverse a call to get it right". Hey, news flash, these officials have egos. They don't want to come out and say "sorry everyone, we just blew that last call". So they look at the replay to satisfy us, then come back and say "indisputable evidence to reverse the call on the field". That's a load of crap. There have been plenty of calls that they show that need to be reversed, but until you get a seperate crew of 2 or 3 people in the booth who do nothing but review a call when it's challenged, you will continue to see this craziness happen. Why wouldn't you have people not associated with the officiating crew reveiwing these calls? If you did, you would find a number of calls overturned when it's obvious they are wrong. You would find calls that are legitimate standing as good calls. People would be satisfied for the most part. Except for the Z E B R A S. They will find they are making a call or two incorrectly in important situations. But you know what else you are doing? You are taking some responsibility from them. What does everyone think? jd
                    -11-25-2001, 07:37 PM
                  Working...
                  X